|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
16 Nov 2020, 06:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
“The producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it—even though that amount is far more than any other person involved with the movie will make. After all, Robin has in the past been paid a similar amount to work in several films that were very financially successful.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counter examples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument states that the producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it, as he has in the past been paid a similar amount to work in several films that were financially successful. Stated this way, the argument demonstrates flawed reasoning as the author only attributes the financial success of the movie to how much a certain actor is paid while not taking into consideration several other important factors that determine the success of the movie. Further, the conclusion is also based on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, this argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the author only attributes the financial success of the movie to how much Robin Good is paid. The author has not substantiated how paying Robin Good several millions will contribute to the financial success of the film, beyond citing that Good has been paid similar amounts in the past to work in financially successful movies. The author demonstrates poor reasoning here, as he assumes that the necessary condition - Robin Good being paid several millions to work in successful movies - as a sufficient condition. As the cause-effect relationship between the Good's salary and the financial success of the movies is not established, the author's conclusion is flawed.
Second, the author also assumes that a high salary is the sole reason that determines the quality of Robin Good's acting performances. The author does not consider the other factors that determine the motivation of Good's performances, such as the quality of the script, the actor's screen-time, the depiction of the character the actor would play, etc. There are several instances that prove that in spite of being paid well, actors have delivered sub-par performances as they were not motivated due to the factors such as a poor script, low screen-time, an insignificant role, etc. Hence, the author's assumption that no other factors impact the actor's performances undermines the conclusion of the argument.
Third, important factors that determine the success the movie, such as the story, the director, the rest of the cast & crew, mode of release, advertising, etc., are not mentioned by the author at all. These factors have played an important role in determining the success of most, if not all, of the financially successful movies in the past. The omission of these factors is hence a major flaw in the argument as the author seeks to establish the reasons for the financial success of the movie.
Fourth, the author is unclear and inconsistent with the definition of financial success. The author describes the goal of the producers as maximum profits, but is vague in the definition of financial success for the author's justification that Robin Good has been paid well in past 'financially successful' movies. It could very well be the case these movies were considered financially successful in terms of the box-office revenue, which is typically the standard metric by which financial success of movies is measured, but some of these movies might have earned poor profits, if at all. Several high grossing films in the past have faced losses in spite of high box-office revenues, due to high production costs and actors' salaries.
Finally, the author's suggestion of paying Robin Good several millions might have the opposite of the intended affect, by raising production costs and reducing profits.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed due to the above mentioned reasons. The argument could be strengthened if the author had accounted for all potential factors affecting the financial success of the movie, established that the Robin Good's performance is the most important factor, and that paying him several millions is the means to achieve the required performance. Further, it is essential to be clear on the definition of financial success in order to properly assess the merits of the argument. Without these, this argument remains flawed.
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counter examples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument states that the producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it, as he has in the past been paid a similar amount to work in several films that were financially successful. Stated this way, the argument demonstrates flawed reasoning as the author only attributes the financial success of the movie to how much a certain actor is paid while not taking into consideration several other important factors that determine the success of the movie. Further, the conclusion is also based on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, this argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the author only attributes the financial success of the movie to how much Robin Good is paid. The author has not substantiated how paying Robin Good several millions will contribute to the financial success of the film, beyond citing that Good has been paid similar amounts in the past to work in financially successful movies. The author demonstrates poor reasoning here, as he assumes that the necessary condition - Robin Good being paid several millions to work in successful movies - as a sufficient condition. As the cause-effect relationship between the Good's salary and the financial success of the movies is not established, the author's conclusion is flawed.
Second, the author also assumes that a high salary is the sole reason that determines the quality of Robin Good's acting performances. The author does not consider the other factors that determine the motivation of Good's performances, such as the quality of the script, the actor's screen-time, the depiction of the character the actor would play, etc. There are several instances that prove that in spite of being paid well, actors have delivered sub-par performances as they were not motivated due to the factors such as a poor script, low screen-time, an insignificant role, etc. Hence, the author's assumption that no other factors impact the actor's performances undermines the conclusion of the argument.
Third, important factors that determine the success the movie, such as the story, the director, the rest of the cast & crew, mode of release, advertising, etc., are not mentioned by the author at all. These factors have played an important role in determining the success of most, if not all, of the financially successful movies in the past. The omission of these factors is hence a major flaw in the argument as the author seeks to establish the reasons for the financial success of the movie.
Fourth, the author is unclear and inconsistent with the definition of financial success. The author describes the goal of the producers as maximum profits, but is vague in the definition of financial success for the author's justification that Robin Good has been paid well in past 'financially successful' movies. It could very well be the case these movies were considered financially successful in terms of the box-office revenue, which is typically the standard metric by which financial success of movies is measured, but some of these movies might have earned poor profits, if at all. Several high grossing films in the past have faced losses in spite of high box-office revenues, due to high production costs and actors' salaries.
Finally, the author's suggestion of paying Robin Good several millions might have the opposite of the intended affect, by raising production costs and reducing profits.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed due to the above mentioned reasons. The argument could be strengthened if the author had accounted for all potential factors affecting the financial success of the movie, established that the Robin Good's performance is the most important factor, and that paying him several millions is the means to achieve the required performance. Further, it is essential to be clear on the definition of financial success in order to properly assess the merits of the argument. Without these, this argument remains flawed.
Moderators:
188 posts
